Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Perspectives on cancer screening participation in a highly urbanized region: a Q-methodology study in The Hague, the Netherlands

Authors: Thomas H. G. Bongaerts, Frederike L. Büchner, Matty R. Crone, Job van Exel, Onno R. Guicherit, Mattijs E. Numans, Vera Nierkens

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Netherlands hosts, as many other European countries, three population-based cancer screening programmes (CSPs). The overall uptake among these CSPs is high, but has decreased over recent years. Especially in highly urbanized regions the uptake rates tend to fall below the minimal effective rate of 70% set by the World Health Organization. Understanding the reasons underlying the decision of citizens to partake in a CPS are essential in order to optimize the current screening participation rates. The aim of this study was to explore the various perspectives concerning cancer screening among inhabitants of The Hague, a highly urbanized region of the Netherlands.

Methods

A Q-methodology study was conducted to provide insight in the prevailing perspectives on partaking in CSPs. All respondents were inhabitants of the city of The Hague, the Netherlands. In an online application they ranked a set of 31 statements, based on the current available literature and clustered by the Integrated Change model, into a 9-column forced ranking grid according to level of agreement, followed by a short survey. Respondents were asked to participate in a subsequent interview to explain their ranking. By-person factor analysis was used to identify distinct perspectives, which were interpreted using data from the rankings and interviews.

Results

Three distinct perspectives were identified: 1). “Positive about participation”, 2). “Thoughtful about participation”, and 3). “Fear drives participation”. These perspectives provide insight into how potential respondents, living in an urbanized region in the Netherlands, decide upon partaking in CSPs.

Conclusions

Since CSPs will only be effective when participation rates are sufficiently high, it is essential to have insight into the different perspectives among potential respondents concerning partaking in a CSP. This study adds new insights concerning these perspectives and suggests several ideas for future optimization of the CSPs.
Literature
1.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Group of Chief Scientific Advisors. Cancer screening in the European Union. 2022.
2.
van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van ME, Patnick J, Lynge E, Arbyn M, Anttila A, et al. Overview of important cervical cancer screening process values in European Union (EU) countries, and tentative predictions of the corresponding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(17):2177–88.PubMedCrossRef
3.
van Ballegooijen M, Hermens R. Cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(17):2244–6.PubMedCrossRef
4.
European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group, von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N, Atkin W, Halloran S, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: Overview and introduction to the full Supplement publication. Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):51–9.
5.
Verbeek ALM, Broeders MJM. Evaluation of The Netherlands breast cancer screening programme. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(8):1203–5.PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Young B, Robb KA. Understanding patient factors to increase uptake of cancer screening: a review. Future Oncol. 2021;17(28):3757–75.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Lynge E, Törnberg S, von Karsa L, Segnan N, van Delden JJ. Determinants of successful implementation of population-based cancer screening programmes. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(5):743–8.PubMedCrossRef
12.
World Health Organization. Cancer control: Early detection. WHO guide for effective programmes. Geneva: 2007.
13.
World Health Organization. National cancer control programmes: policies and managerial guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.
14.
World Health Organization. Guide to cancer early diagnosis. 2017.
15.
16.
Bongaerts THG, Büchner FL, Middelkoop BJ, Guicherit OR, Numans ME. Determinants of (non-) attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes: A systematic review. J Med Screen. 2020;27(3):121–9.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Myers L, Goodwin B, Ralph N, March S. A health action process approach for developing invitee endorsed interventions to increase mail‐out bowel cancer screening. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being. 2022. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​aphw.​12346.
18.
19.
Tacken MA, Braspenning JC, Hermens RP, Spreeuwenberg PM, Van Den Hoogen HJ, De Bakker DH, et al. Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women’s beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17(2):178–85.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Forss A, Tishelman C, Widmark C, Lundgren EL, Sachs L, Törnberg S. ‘I got a letter…’A qualitative study of women’s reasoning about attendance in a cervical cancer screening programme in urban Sweden. Psychooncology. 2001;10(1):76–87.PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
23.
24.
Patty NJ, Van Dijk HM, Wallenburg I, Bal R, Helmerhorst TJ, Van Exel J, et al. To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? Perspectives on HPV vaccination among girls, boys, and parents in the Netherlands: a Q-methodological study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–12.CrossRef
25.
Rotteveel A, Reckers-Droog V, Lambooij M, De Wit G, Van Exel N. Societal views in the Netherlands on active disinvestment of publicly funded healthcare interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2021;272:113708.PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
28.
Weinstein ND, Lyon JE, Sandman PM, Cuite CL. Experimental evidence for stages of health behavior change: the precaution adoption process model applied to home radon testing. Health Psychol. 1998;17(5):445.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J Psychol. 1975;91(1):93–114.PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.CrossRef
32.
De Vries H, Mesters I, Van de Steeg H, Honing C. The general public’s information needs and perceptions regarding hereditary cancer: an application of the Integrated Change Model. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;56(2):154–65.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Groenenberg I, Crone MR, van Dijk S, Gebhardt WA, Meftah JB, Middelkoop BJ, et al. ‘Check it out!’Decision-making of vulnerable groups about participation in a two-stage cardiometabolic health check: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(2):234–44.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Nierkens V, Stronks K, de Vries H. Attitudes, social influences and self-efficacy expectations across different motivational stages among immigrant smokers: Replication of the∅ pattern. Prev Med. 2006;43(4):306–11.PubMedCrossRef
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Cooke R, French DP. How well do the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour predict intentions and attendance at screening programmes? Psychol health. 2008;23(7):745–65.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Cullati S, Charvet-Bérard AI, Perneger TV. Cancer screening in a middle-aged general population: factors associated with practices and attitudes. BMC Public Health. 2009;9(1):1–11.CrossRef
45.
Douma LN, Uiters E, Timmermans DR. Why are the public so positive about colorectal cancer screening? BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–9.CrossRef
46.
Savage SA, Clarke VA. Older women’s illness representations of cancer: a qualitative study. Health Educ Res. 1998;13(4):529–44.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Douma LN, Uiters E, Timmermans DR. The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion? BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1–12.CrossRef
48.
49.
Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(17):1216–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Dubayova T, van Dijk JP, Nagyova I, Rosenberger J, Havlikova E, Gdovinova Z, et al. The impact of the intensity of fear on patient’s delay regarding health care seeking behavior: a systematic review. Int J Public Health. 2010;55(5):459–68.PubMedCrossRef
51.
McCaul KD, Schroeder DM, Reid PA. Breast cancer worry and screening: some prospective data. Health Psychol. 1996;15(6):430.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Vrinten C, Waller J, von Wagner C, Wardle J. Cancer fear: facilitator and deterrent to participation in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers. 2015;24(2):400–5.CrossRef
53.
Vernon SW. Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviors: a review. JNCI Monographs. 1999;1999(25):101–19.CrossRef
54.
Atkinson TM, Salz T, Touza KK, Li Y, Hay JL. Does colorectal cancer risk perception predict screening behavior? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Behav Med. 2015;38(6):837–50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Chan CW, Yang SB, Gu C, Wang X, Tao L. Perception of cervical cancer risk and screening behavior: a literature review. Int J Nurs Knowl. 2015;26(1):2–18.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Goodwin BC, Myers L, Ireland MJ, March S, Ralph N, Dunn J, et al. Barriers to home bowel cancer screening. Psychooncology. 2021;30(10):1756–64.PubMedCrossRef
57.
De Nooijer D, De Waart F, Van Leeuwen A, Spijker W. Participation in the Dutch national screening programme for uterine cervic cancer higher after invitation by a general practitioner, especially in groups with a traditional low level of attendance. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005;149(42):2339–43.PubMed
58.
Hermens RP, Tacken MA, Hulscher ME, Braspenning JC, Grol RP. Attendance to cervical cancer screening in family practices in The Netherlands. Prev Med. 2000;30(1):35–42.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Spadea T, Bellini S, Kunst A, Stirbu I, Costa G. The impact of interventions to improve attendance in female cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups: a review. Prev Med. 2010;50(4):159–64.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Reath J, Carey M. Breast and cervical cancer in Indigenous women: overcoming barriers to early detection. Australian family physician. 2008;37(3):178-82.
61.
Watts S, Stenner P. Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qual Res Psychol. 2005;2(1):67–91.CrossRef
62.
Baker RM, Van Exel J, Mason H, Stricklin M. Connecting Q & surveys: three methods to explore factor membership in large samples Operant Subjectivity. Int J Q Methodol. 2010;34(1):38–58.
63.
Danielson S, Tuler SP, Santos SL, Webler T, Chess C. Three tools for evaluating participation: Focus groups, Q method, and surveys. Environ Pract. 2012;14(2):101–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Perspectives on cancer screening participation in a highly urbanized region: a Q-methodology study in The Hague, the Netherlands
Authors
Thomas H. G. Bongaerts
Frederike L. Büchner
Matty R. Crone
Job van Exel
Onno R. Guicherit
Mattijs E. Numans
Vera Nierkens
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14312-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Public Health 1/2022 Go to the issue

Research

Food and beverage advertising expenditures in Canada in 2016 and 2019 across media

Research

Which urban communities are susceptible to COVID-19? An empirical study through the lens of community resilience

Research

Polysubstance use poisoning deaths in Canada: an analysis of trends from 2014 to 2017 using mortality data

Research

Population mental health matters child health disparity: a national level analysis

Research

National geographical pattern of COVID-19 hospitalization, case fatalities, and associated factors in patients covered by Iran Health Insurance Organization

Research

Educational intervention program based on health belief model and neck pain prevention behaviors in school teachers in Tehran